RAID 5 is the most cost effective for read & write speed with minimal loss of over all storage from your HDD. The best place to work out the best storage plan is AC&NC - RAID.edu. AFAIK NAS devices need a controlling server to manage the access t the storage. I've just added an Apple xRAID to our xServe to add 750 GB of data storage in RAID 5 (4 x 250 GB HDD).

IMHO a dedicated file server, possibly using LVM which allows for dynamic resizing of volumes if required, but definitely with Hardware RAID would be a better proposition. Once the file server is in place though NAS devices may be more cost effective. You need to plan your partitioning scheme so that actual OS files (/boot, /, /var have sufficient space) are ideally on RAID 1 (mirrored) and the actual data is on your large RAID 5 array.

I wouldn't say hardware raid is a nescesity anymore, as long as the server in quertions isnt tied up doing a lot of processing software RAID has proven to be similar speeds to basic hardware raid. We use RAID0 for file servers at work with Seagate drives for the extended warranty / reliability and drop in replacement backup servers using RAID1 (about 1 for every 3 file server).

Is offering an FTP server for all the differnent networked machines efficient instead of having to bother with all of the different networking protocols for Macintosh, Linux and Windows ?

I wouldn't know, I would just use NFS on Windows and Macs if I ever come across any blasphemy networked to me. FTP isn't very efficient when many files are involved, I would recommend ssh/scp over ftp any day as more and more hosts offer it, possibly rsync too depnding on the situation. Although I consider rsync more of a mirror / backup protocol

As to hard ware i would suggest
VIA itx mother boards - if storage is all its for these board are woth there weight,
raid controller card,
Western digital 250GB hd's,
1 GB Ram
The MB's Have every thing but ram on them but process are under 1.5GHz

Just be careful configuring an ITX with an ViA CPU, try to avoid 686 built binaries and turn off any cpuspeed services.
I would say that 1GB RAM could be excessive, 512 would do the job fine (if there is no GUI required) and you probably won't see much speed increase between 512MB and 1GB. I would suggest Segate or WDs as Segates have the extended warranty (and I haven't had one break in any of our servers yet).

I suggested WD's because i got 250GB for £70
Oh and based on experience mandriva+kde will run happy with only 256 ram (dunno what i was thinking)
everthing but hardware mpg decoding is now working in linux but mandriva would probubly do the trick as a server!!

Cons:
Stuck with whatever the OS on the unit ( I prefer Linux ).
The OS on the unit is not modifiable.
I'm not sure but I think these are not able to use wireless.
Cant grow upwards in size later on.

************ Remaining Questions ************

1. Which file format is recomended. i.e. Reiser, NTFS, etc.
2. Does anyone know of a Linux OS NAS with wireless that is under 1000 US Dollars?
3. Is there a solutioin that can grow in size or are you 'stuck' with NAS?

Just some quick searching turned up NASLite at http://www.serverelements.com/naslite.php which may be a cheaper and easier NAS solution. Really $US1000 is just a basic server with some large HDD for storage space - using Samba and making the home directories, work directories, group storage available from a normal Linux server is about all you are going to get. It may even be easier just to schedule a backup job from your current server to a Linux server.

if you build yourself a server you can use your own *nix and save a bucketload.
Shopping list
wd 320gb hd's = $229 X4 = 1640GB @ $920USD,
MB @under $200 USD?
1gbram $300USD?
linux - free of LXF or down load?
Doesnt that it in the budget?

Last edited by AJB2K3 on Mon Jul 18, 2005 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Many thanks for your ideas. You all seem experienced in custom building servers. Unfortunately it appears I will not be able to build a custom server or use an external computer to control the storage due to a need for 'hands off' at the office, whre there is no full time IT specialist, and no Primary Domain Controller.

It appears an NAS is a less than perfect solution but more maintenance free when there isn't an IT around to hand hold a server.

I have also added some of the costs listed here and custom building vs. pre-built NAS seems more costly than a pre configured NAS unit. You will have more ram and processor power, but only important if the load requires it.

I dont want another computer just a network/usb/firewire small quite box to hold 4 or 5 BIG harddrives....

But I cant seem to find anything simular from ebuyer/ dabs/ amazon/ google or what ever... I just want case and trays etc... place my own harddrives in....

Iomga and such is JUST too expensive....

Buggalo Terabyte Network Attached Storage - 1.0 TB again to expensive for my (home) but I do like the idea of being able to add extra USB Harddrives to the mix..
but they would only be temp copy and out and cant be left on 24/7.